Preoperative oral antibiotics and surgical-site infections in colon surgery (ORALEV): a multicentre, single-blind, pragmatic, randomised controlled trial

Environmental and financial impacts of perioperative paracetamol use: a multicentre international life-cycle assessment

BACKGROUND

Pharmaceuticals account for 19-32% of healthcare greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Paracetamol is a common perioperative analgesic agent. We estimated GHG emissions associated with i.v. and oral formulations of paracetamol used in the perioperative period.

METHODS

Life-cycle assessment of GHG emissions (expressed as carbon dioxide equivalents CO2e) of i.v. and oral paracetamol preparations was performed. Perioperative paracetamol prescribing practices and costs for 26 hospitals in USA, UK, and Australia were retrospectively audited. For those surgical patients for whom oral formulations were indicated, CO2e and costs of actual prescribing practices for i.v. or oral doses were compared with optimal oral prescribing.

RESULTS

The carbon footprint for a 1 g dose was 38 g CO2e (oral tablet), 151 g CO2e (oral liquid), and 310-628 g CO2e (i.v. dependent on type of packaging and administration supplies). Of the eligible USA patients, 37% received paracetamol (67% was i.v.). Of the eligible UK patients, 85% received paracetamol (80% was i.v.). Of the eligible Australian patients, 66% received paracetamol (70% was i.v.). If the emissions mitigation opportunity from substituting oral tablets for i.v. paracetamol is extrapolated to USA, UK, and Australia elective surgical encounters in 2019, ∼5.7 kt CO2e could have been avoided and would save 98.3% of financial costs.

CONCLUSIONS

Intravenous paracetamol has 12-fold greater life-cycle carbon emissions than the oral tablet form. Glass vials have higher greenhouse gas emissions than plastic vials. Intravenous administration should be reserved for cases in which oral formulations are not feasible.

Randomized Controlled Trial: Does the Use of Occlusive Hydrocolloid Silver-Containing Wound Dressing after Sternotomy Reduce Surgical Site Infection after Cardiac Surgery?

(1) Background: To reduce the incidence of surgical site infections (SSIs) following median sternotomy in cardiac surgery, we compared an occlusive hydrocolloid silver-containing wound dressing (OHSCWD) with a standard wound dressing. (2) Methods: This study was designed as a single-center randomized controlled trial. The primary endpoint was the overall rate of incidence of any kind of SSI. Secondary endpoints were the number of dressing changes, the severity of SSIs, and whether there was a need for treatment. Wounds were monitored daily until the seventh and on the 30th postoperative day. (3) Results: Of the 423 patients included, 352 were analyzed. No differences in demographics, cardiovascular risk factors, intraoperative processes, and postoperative care were found between both groups. Additionally, the incidence or extent of SSI showed no significant differences between the two groups. (4) Conclusions: In summary, out of all pre-, intra-, and postoperative factors, the contribution of postoperative wound care to the development of SSIs appears to play a subordinate role. However, by offering equivalent wound protection and a reduced number of dressing changes, OHSCWD after median sternotomy in cardiac surgery patients could be a good alternative to standard dressings from the point of view of the patient, the staff, and the clinic.

Evaluation of Laparoscopic Colorectal Resection Among Elderly Individuals With Colorectal Malignancy: A Single-center Retrospective Analysis

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of the current study was to statistically clarify the precise risk age in elderly patients undergoing colorectal surgery and to evaluate the safety and efficacy of laparoscopic colorectal resection in these patients.

METHODS

Patients' clinical variables were extracted from the database of the Gastrointestinal Surgery Centre, Third Affiliated Hospital of Sun Yat-sen University, from 2015 to 2019. Logistic regression was conducted to identify independent risk factors of postoperative complications and ORs for each age. Curves of odds ratios (ORs) and CIs for each age were fitted by using a locally weighted scatterplot smoother, and a structural breakpoint was determined by the Chow test to identify a precise cutoff risk age for elderly patients. Comparison and subgroup analysis were conducted between surgical approach groups using the Student t test and χ 2 analysis.

RESULTS

Locally weighted scatterplot smoother OR analysis manifested that patients aged 69 years old or older suffered a higher possibility of postoperative complications and should be defined as high-risk age. Comparison according to the high-risk age revealed laparoscopic colorectal surgery is better than laparotomic surgery for elderly individuals in terms of hospital stay (9.46 ± 5.96 vs 15.01 ± 6.34, P < 0.05), the incidence of intensive care unit transfer (4 vs 20, P < 0.05), and incidence of surgical site infection (15 vs 20, P < 0.05). Patients who underwent laparotomic surgery had a greater prevalence of Clavien-Dindo II/III complications ( P < 0.05). These findings remained stable even after propensity matching. Furthermore, such superiority was proved especially significant for patients who underwent left-side colorectal resection. In addition, overall survival was improved in the laparoscopic surgery group, whereas no differences were observed in disease-free survival.

CONCLUSION

In our study population, age 69 or older was a cutoff point age suggests a higher possibility of postoperative morbidity after colorectal surgery. Laparoscopic colorectal resection should be regarded as a superior therapeutic choice for these elderly individuals, especially for left-side colorectal surgeries.

Machine learning-based prediction models affecting the recovery of postoperative bowel function for patients undergoing colorectal surgeries

PURPOSE

The debate surrounding factors influencing postoperative flatus and defecation in patients undergoing colorectal resection prompted this study. Our objective was to identify independent risk factors and develop prediction models for postoperative bowel function in patients undergoing colorectal surgeries.

METHODS

A retrospective analysis of medical records was conducted for patients who undergoing colorectal surgeries at Peking University People's Hospital from January 2015 to October 2021. Machine learning algorithms were employed to identify risk factors and construct prediction models for the time of the first postoperative flatus and defecation. The prediction models were evaluated using sensitivity, specificity, the Youden index, and the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) through logistic regression, random forest, Naïve Bayes, and extreme gradient boosting algorithms.

RESULTS

The study included 1358 patients for postoperative flatus timing analysis and 1430 patients for postoperative defecation timing analysis between January 2015 and December 2020 as part of the training phase. Additionally, a validation set comprised 200 patients who undergoing colorectal surgeries from January to October 2021. The logistic regression prediction model exhibited the highest AUC (0.78) for predicting the timing of the first postoperative flatus. Identified independent risk factors influencing the time of first postoperative flatus were Age (p < 0.01), oral laxatives for bowel preparation (p = 0.01), probiotics (p = 0.02), oral antibiotics for bowel preparation (p = 0.02), duration of operation (p = 0.02), postoperative fortified antibiotics (p = 0.02), and time of first postoperative feeding (p < 0.01). Furthermore, logistic regression achieved an AUC of 0.72 for predicting the time of first postoperative defecation, with age (p < 0.01), oral antibiotics for bowel preparation (p = 0.01), probiotics (p = 0.01), and time of first postoperative feeding (p < 0.01) identified as independent risk factors.

CONCLUSIONS

The study suggests that he use of probiotics and early recovery of diet may enhance the recovery of bowel function in patients undergoing colorectal surgeries. Among the various analytical methods used, logistic regression emerged as the most effective approach for predicting the timing of the first postoperative flatus and defecation in this patient population.

Bowel preparation for elective colorectal resection: multi-treatment machine learning analysis on 6241 cases from a prospective Italian cohort

BACKGROUND

Current evidence concerning bowel preparation before elective colorectal surgery is still controversial. This study aimed to compare the incidence of anastomotic leakage (AL), surgical site infections (SSIs), and overall morbidity (any adverse event, OM) after elective colorectal surgery using four different types of bowel preparation.

METHODS

A prospective database gathered among 78 Italian surgical centers in two prospective studies, including 6241 patients who underwent elective colorectal resection with anastomosis for malignant or benign disease, was re-analyzed through a multi-treatment machine-learning model considering no bowel preparation (NBP; No. = 3742; 60.0%) as the reference treatment arm, compared to oral antibiotics alone (oA; No. = 406; 6.5%), mechanical bowel preparation alone (MBP; No. = 1486; 23.8%), or in combination with oAB (MoABP; No. = 607; 9.7%). Twenty covariates related to biometric data, surgical procedures, perioperative management, and hospital/center data potentially affecting outcomes were included and balanced into the model. The primary endpoints were AL, SSIs, and OM. All the results were reported as odds ratio (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (95% CI).

RESULTS

Compared to NBP, MBP showed significantly higher AL risk (OR 1.82; 95% CI 1.23-2.71; p = .003) and OM risk (OR 1.38; 95% CI 1.10-1.72; p = .005), no significant differences for all the endpoints were recorded in the oA group, whereas MoABP showed a significantly reduced SSI risk (OR 0.45; 95% CI 0.25-0.79; p = .008).

CONCLUSIONS

MoABP significantly reduced the SSI risk after elective colorectal surgery, therefore representing a valid alternative to NBP.

Score prediction of anastomotic leak in colorectal surgery: a systematic review

OBJECTIVE

Predicting the risk of anastomotic leak (AL) is of importance when defining the optimal surgical strategy in colorectal surgery. Our objective was to perform a systematic review of existing scores in the field.

METHODS

We followed the PRISMA checklist (S1 Checklist). Medline, Cochrane Central and Embase were searched for observational studies reporting on scores predicting AL after the creation of a colorectal anastomosis. Studies reporting only validation of existing scores and/or scores based on post-operative variables were excluded. PRISMA 2020 recommendations were followed. Qualitative analysis was performed.

RESULTS

Eight hundred articles were identified. Seven hundred and ninety-one articles were excluded after title/abstract and full-text screening, leaving nine studies for analysis. Scores notably included the Colon Leakage Score, the modified Colon Leakage Score, the REAL score, www.anastomoticleak.com and the PROCOLE score. Four studies (44.4%) included more than 1.000 patients and one extracted data from existing studies (meta-analysis of risk factors). Scores included the following pre-operative variables: age (44.4%), sex (77.8%), ASA score (66.6%), BMI (33.3%), diabetes (22.2%), respiratory comorbidity (22.2%), cardiovascular comorbidity (11.1%), liver comorbidity (11.1%), weight loss (11.1%), smoking (33.3%), alcohol consumption (33.3%), steroid consumption (33.3%), neo-adjuvant treatment (44.9%), anticoagulation (11.1%), hematocrit concentration (22.2%), total proteins concentration (11.1%), white blood cell count (11.1%), albumin concentration (11.1%), distance from the anal verge (77.8%), number of hospital beds (11.1%), pre-operative bowel preparation (11.1%) and indication for surgery (11.1%). Scores included the following peri-operative variables: emergency surgery (22.2%), surgical approach (22.2%), duration of surgery (66.6%), blood loss/transfusion (55.6%), additional procedure (33.3%), operative complication (22.2%), wound contamination class (1.11%), mechanical anastomosis (1.11%) and experience of the surgeon (11.1%). Five studies (55.6%) reported the area under the curve (AUC) of the scores, and four (44.4%) included a validation set.

CONCLUSION

Existing scores are heterogeneous in the identification of pre-operative variables allowing predicting AL. A majority of scores was established from small cohorts of patients which, considering the low incidence of AL, might lead to miss potential predictors of AL. AUC is seldom reported. We recommend that new scores to predict the risk of AL in colorectal surgery to be based on large cohorts of patients, to include a validation set and to report the AUC.

Oral Antibiotics Alone versus Oral Antibiotics Combined with Mechanical Bowel Preparation for Elective Colorectal Surgery: A Propensity Score-Matching Re-Analysis of the iCral 2 and 3 Prospective Cohorts

The evidence regarding the role of oral antibiotics alone (oA) or combined with mechanical bowel preparation (MoABP) for elective colorectal surgery remains controversial. A prospective database of 8359 colorectal resections gathered over a 32-month period from 78 Italian surgical units (the iCral 2 and 3 studies), reporting patient-, disease-, and procedure-related variables together with 60-day adverse events, was re-analyzed to identify a subgroup of 1013 cases (12.1%) that received either oA or MoABP. This dataset was analyzed using a 1:1 propensity score-matching model including 20 covariates. Two well-balanced groups of 243 patients each were obtained: group A (oA) and group B (MoABP). The primary endpoints were anastomotic leakage (AL) and surgical site infection (SSI) rates. Group A vs. group B showed a significantly higher AL risk [14 (5.8%) vs. 6 (2.5%) events; OR: 3.77; 95%CI: 1.22-11.67; p = 0.021], while no significant difference was recorded between the two groups regarding SSIs. These results strongly support the use of MoABP for elective colorectal resections.

The Impact of Mechanical Bowel Preparation and Oral Antibiotics in Colorectal Cancer Surgery (MECCA Study): A Prospective Randomized Clinical Trial

Background: Colorectal cancer surgery has been associated with surgical site infections (SSIs), leading to an increase in postoperative morbidity, length of stay and total cost. The aim of the present randomized study was to investigate the relationship between the preoperative administration of oral antibiotic therapy and SSI rate, as well as other postoperative outcomes in patients undergoing colorectal cancer surgery. Material and Methods: Patients who underwent colorectal cancer surgery in a university surgical department were included in the present study. Patients were randomized into two groups using the "block randomization" method. The intervention group received three doses of 400 mg rifaximin and one dose of 500 mg metronidazole per os, as well as mechanical bowel preparation the day before surgery. The control group underwent only mechanical bowel preparation the day before surgery. The study has been registered in ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT03563586). Results: Two hundred and five patients were finally included in the present study, 97 of whom received preoperative antibiotic therapy per os (intervention group). Patients of this group demonstrated a significantly lower SSI rate compared with patients who did not receive preoperative antibiotic therapy (7% vs. 16%, p = 0.049). However, preoperative antibiotic administration was not correlated with any other postoperative outcome (anastomotic leak, overall complications, readmissions, length of stay). Conclusions: Preoperative antibiotic therapy in combination with mechanical bowel preparation seemed to be correlated with a lower SSI rate after colorectal cancer surgery.

Cost-effectiveness of selective decontamination of the digestive tract to decrease infectious complications in colorectal cancer surgery: An analysis of the SELECT trial

INTRODUCTION

Selective decontamination of the digestive tract (SDD) is effective in reducing infectious complications in elective colorectal cancer (CRC) surgery. However, it is unclear whether SDD is cost-effective compared to standard antibiotic prophylaxis.

MATERIAL & METHODS

Economic evaluation alongside multicenter randomized controlled trial, the SELECT-trial, from a healthcare perspective. Patients included underwent elective surgery for non-metastatic CRC. The intervention group received oral non-absorbable colistin, tobramycin and amphotericin B (SDD) next to standard antibiotic prophylaxis. Both groups received a single shot intravenous cefazolin and metronidazole preoperatively as standard prophylaxis. Occurrence of postoperative infectious complication in the first 30 postoperative days was extracted from medical records, Quality-Adjusted Life-Years (QALYs) based on the ED-5D-3L, and healthcare costs collected from the hospital's financial administration.

RESULTS

Of the 455 patients, 228 were randomly assigned to intervention group and 227 patients to the control group. SDD significantly reduced the number of infectious complications compared to control (difference = -0.13, 95 % CI -0.05 to -0.20). No difference was found for QALYs (difference = 0.002, 95 % CI -0.002 to 0.005). Healthcare costs were statistically significantly lower in the intervention group (difference = -€1258, 95 % CI -2751 to -166). The ICER was -9872 €/infectious complication prevented and -820,380 €/QALY gained. For all willingness-to-pay thresholds, the probability that prophylactic SDD was cost-effective compared to standard prophylactic practice alone was 1.0.

CONCLUSION

The addition of SDD to the standard preoperative intravenous antibiotic prophylaxis is cost-effective compared to standard prophylactic practice from a healthcare perspective and should be considered as the standard of care.

Antibiotics for preventing infection at the surgical site: Single dose vs. multiple doses

Background

Surgical site infections are common and expensive infections that can cause fatalities or poor patient outcomes. To prevent these infections, antibiotic prophylaxis is used. However, excessive antibiotic use is related to higher costs and the emergence of antimicrobial resistance.

Objectives

The present meta-analysis aimed to compare the effectiveness of a single dosage versus several doses of antibiotics in preventing the development of surgical site infections.

Methods

PubMed was used to find clinical trials evaluating the effectiveness of a single dosage versus several doses of antibiotics in avoiding the development of surgical site infections. The study included trials that were published between 1984 and 2022. Seventy-four clinical trials were included in the analysis. Odds ratios were used to compare groups with 95% confidence intervals. The data were displayed using OR to generate a forest plot. Review Manager (RevMan version 5.4) was used to do the meta-analysis.

Results

Regarding clean operations, there were 389 surgical site infections out of 5,634 patients in a single dose group (6.90%) and 349 surgical site infections out of 5,621 patients in multiple doses group (6.21%) (OR = 1.11, lower CI = 0.95, upper CI = 1.30). Regarding clean-contaminated operations, there were 137 surgical site infections out of 2,715 patients in a single dose group (5.05%) and 137 surgical site infections out of 2,355 patients in multiple doses group (5.82%) (OR = 0.87, lower CI = 0.68, upper CI = 1.11). Regarding contaminated operations, there were 302 surgical site infections out of 3,262 patients in a single dose group (9.26%) and 276 surgical site infections out of 3,212 patients in multiple doses group (8.59%) (OR = 1.11, lower CI = 0.84, upper CI = 1.47). In general, there were 828 surgical site infections out of 11,611 patients in a single dose group (7.13%) and 762 surgical site infections out of 11,188 patients in multiple doses group (6.81%) (OR = 1.05, lower CI = 0.93, upper CI = 1.20). The difference between groups was not significant.

Conclusion

The present study showed that using a single-dose antimicrobial prophylaxis was equally effective as using multiple doses of antibiotics in decreasing surgical site infections.

Meta-analysis of efficacy of perioperative oral antibiotics in intestinal surgery with surgical site infection

OBJECTIVES

Surgical site infection (SSI) is a serious complication of intestinal surgery. In this meta-analysis, we aimed to explore the efficacy and safety of different preoperative oral antibiotic preparation (OABP) compared with intravenous antibiotic preparation (IVAP) and/or mechanical bowel preparation (MBP).

METHODS

A meta-analysis consisting of adult patients adopting oral antibiotics versus other regimens during the preoperative preparation of elective intestinal surgery was performed. The outcome included overall SSI, organ space SSI, superficial SSI, deep SSI, and mortality rate.

RESULTS

A total of 35 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) consisting of 8445 adult patients were included in our present analysis. OABP regimens were combined with IVAP in 29 RCTs. In general, the incidence of overall SSI in the OABP group was less compared with the IVAP alone or IVAP+MBP group (RR 0.56, 95% CI 0.46-0.69, P < .00001, I2 = 47%). Metronidazoles plus quinolones or aminoglycosides showed the best effect on reducing the overall SSI. OABP in combination with preoperative and postoperative IVAP was both significantly associated with reduced SSI. IVAP before and within 24 h after surgery showed the best advantage. No difference was found between the OABP without IVAP group and the control group in reducing SSI. OABP regimens also demonstrated a lower incidence rate of organ space SSI, superficial SSI, deep SSI, and mortality.

CONCLUSION

OABP in combination with preoperative IVAP and within 24 h post-operation significantly reduced the incidence of SSI in intestinal surgery. Metronidazoles accompanied with quinolones or aminoglycosides might be the appropriate combinations for OABP regimens.

Mismatch of populations between randomised controlled trials of perioperative interventions in major abdominal surgery and current clinical practice

BACKGROUND

Demographics of patients undergoing major abdominal surgery are changing. External validity of relevant RCTs may be limited by participants not resembling patients encountered in clinical practice. We aimed to characterise differences in age, weight, BMI, and ASA grade between participants in perioperative trials in major abdominal surgery and patients in a reference real-world clinical practice sample. The secondary aim was to investigate whether time since trial publication was associated with increasing mismatch between these groups.

METHODS

MEDLINE and Embase were searched for multicentre RCTs from inception to September 2022. Studies of perioperative interventions in adults were included. Studies that limited enrolment based on age, weight, BMI, or ASA status were excluded. We compared trial cohort age, weight, BMI, and ASA distribution to those of patients undergoing major abdominal surgery at our tertiary referral hospital during September 2021 to September 2022. We used a local, single-institution reference sample to reflect the reality of clinical practice (i.e. patients treated by a clinician in their own hospital, rather than averaged nationally). Mismatch was defined using comparison of summary characteristics and ad hoc criteria based on differences relevant to predicted mortality risk after surgery.

RESULTS

One-hundred and six trials (44,499 participants) were compared to a reference cohort of 2792 clinical practice patients. Trials were published a median (IQR [range]) 13.4 (5-20 [0-35]) years ago. A total of 94.3% of trials were mismatched on at least one characteristic (age, weight, BMI, ASA). Recruitment of ASA 3 + participants in trials increased over time, and recruitment of ASA 1 participants decreased over time (Spearman's Rho 0.58 and - 0.44, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

Patients encountered in our current local clinical practice are significantly different from those in our defined set of perioperative RCTs. Older trials recruit more low-risk than high-risk participants-trials may thus 'expire' over time. These trials may not be generalisable to current patients undergoing major abdominal surgery, and meta-analyses or guidelines incorporating these trials may therefore be similarly non-applicable. Comparison to local, rather than national cohorts, is important for meaningful on-the-ground evidence-based decision-making.

Region-specific protection effect of preoperative oral antibiotics combined with mechanical bowel preparation before laparoscopic colorectal resection: a prospective randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Oral antibiotics (OA) combined with mechanical bowel preparation (MBP) significantly decrease the rate of surgical site infections (SSIs). However, the prophylactic effects in region-specific colorectal surgery have not been assessed.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A single-centre, single-blind, randomized controlled trial was conducted from 2019 to 2022. Patients were eligible if they were diagnosed with nonmetastatic colorectal malignancy, and laparoscopic colorectal surgery was indicated. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1) to the experimental (OA+MBP preparation) or control group (MBP preparation). The randomization was further stratified by resected region. The primary outcome was the incidence of SSIs. Patients were followed up for 1 month postoperatively, and all complications were recorded.

RESULT

Between 2019 and 2022, 157 and 152 patients were assigned to the experimental and control groups, respectively, after 51 patients were excluded. The incidence of SSIs in the control group (27/152) was significantly higher than that in the experimental group (13/157; P =0.013), as was the incidence of superficial SSIs (5/157 vs. 14/152, P =0.027) and deep SSIs (7/157 vs. 16/152, P =0.042). After redistribution according to the resected region, the incidence of SSIs was significantly higher in the control group with left-sided colorectal resection (descending, sigmoid colon, and rectum) (9/115 vs. 20/111, P =0.022) but was similar between the groups with right-sided colon resection (ascending colon) (3/37 vs. 7/36, P =0.286). No differences were noted between the groups in terms of other perioperative complications.

CONCLUSION

OA+MBP before colorectal surgery significantly reduced the incidence of SSIs. Such a prophylactic effect was particularly significant for left-sided resection. This preparation mode should be routinely adopted before elective left-region colorectal surgeries.

Mechanical bowel preparation with pre-operative oral antibiotics in elective colorectal resections: an Australian single institution experience

BACKGROUND

Anastomotic leaks (AL) and surgical site infections (SSI) are serious complications after colorectal resection. Studies have shown the benefits of pre-operative oral antibiotics (OAB) with mechanical bowel preparation (MBP) in reducing AL and SSI rates. We aim to investigate our experience with the short-term outcomes of AL and SSI following elective colorectal resections in patients receiving OAB with MBP versus MBP only.

METHODS

A retrospective analysis was performed from our database for patients who underwent elective colorectal resection between January 2019 and November 2021. Prior to August 2020, OAB was not used as part of MBP. After 2020, Neomycin and Metronidazole were used in conjunction with MBP. We evaluated differences in AL and SSI between both groups.

RESULTS

Five hundred and seventeen patients were included from our database with 247 having MBP while 270 had OAB and MBP. There was a significantly lower rate of AL in patients receiving MBP and OAB as compared to MBP alone (0.4% versus 3.0%, P-value = 0.03). The SSI rate at our institution was 4.4%. It was lower in patients with MBP and OAB as compared to MBP alone, but this was not clinically significant (3.3% versus 5.7%, P-value = 0.19).

CONCLUSION

The association in the reduction of AL with the addition of OAB to the MBP protocol seen here reinforces the need for future randomized controlled trials in the Australasian context. We recommend colorectal institutions in Australian and New Zealand consider OAB with MBP as part of their elective colorectal resection protocol.

How to reduce the colorectal anastomotic leakage? The MIRACLe protocol experience in a cohort in a single high-volume centre

This article reports the results of a novel perioperative treatment implementing the gut microbiota to prevent anastomotic fistula and leakage (AL) in patients undergoing laparoscopic colorectal resections for cancer and represents the continuation of our pilot study on 60 cases. A series of 131 patients underwent elective colorectal surgery at the S. Eugenio Hospital (Rome-Italy) between December 1, 2020, and November 30, 2022, and received a perioperative preparation following the Microbiota Implementation to Reduce Anastomotic Colorectal Leaks (MIRACLe) protocol comprising oral antibiotics, mechanical bowel preparation and perioperative probiotics. The results obtained in the MIRACLe group (MG) were compared to those registered in a Control group (CG) of 500 patients operated on between March 2015 and November 30, 2020, who received a standard ERAS protocol. Propensity score-matching (PSM) analysis was performed to overcome patients' selection bias. Patients were categorised according to perioperative preparation (MIRACLe protocol vs standard ERAS protocol) into two groups: 118 patients were in post-matched MIRACLe group (pmMG) and 356 were in post-matched Control group (pmCG). In the pmMG, only 2 anastomotic leaks were registered, and the incidence of AL was just 1.7% vs. 6.5% in the pmCG (p = 0.044). The incidence of surgical site infections (1.7% vs. 3.1%; p = 0.536), reoperations (0.8% vs. 4.2%; p = 0.136) and postoperative mortality (0% vs. 2.0%; p = 0.200) was lower in pmMG. Additionally, the postoperative outcomes were better: the times to first flatus, to first stool and to oral feeding were shorter (1 vs. 2, 2 vs. 3 and 2 vs. 3 days, respectively; p < 0.001). The postoperative recovery was faster, with a shorter time to discharge (5 vs. 6 days; p < 0.001). The MIRACLe protocol was confirmed to be safe and significantly able to reduce anastomotic leaks in patients receiving elective laparoscopic colorectal surgery for cancer.

Early outcomes from the Minimally Invasive Right Colectomy Anastomosis study (MIRCAST)

BACKGROUND

The impact of method of anastomosis and minimally invasive surgical technique on surgical and clinical outcomes after right hemicolectomy is uncertain. The aim of the MIRCAST study was to compare intracorporeal and extracorporeal anastomosis (ICA and ECA respectively), each using either a laparoscopic approach or robot-assisted surgery during right hemicolectomies for benign or malignant tumours.

METHODS

This was an international, multicentre, prospective, observational, monitored, non-randomized, parallel, four-cohort study (laparoscopic ECA; laparoscopic ICA; robot-assisted ECA; robot-assisted ICA). High-volume surgeons (at least 30 minimally invasive right colectomy procedures/year) from 59 hospitals across 12 European countries treated patients over a 3-year interval The primary composite endpoint was 30-day success, defined by two measures of efficacy-absence of surgical wound infection and of any major complication within the first 30 days after surgery. Secondary outcomes were: overall complications, conversion rate, duration of operation, and number of lymph nodes harvested. Propensity score analysis was used for comparison of ICA with ECA, and robot-assisted surgery with laparoscopy.

RESULTS

Some 1320 patients were included in an intention-to-treat analysis (laparoscopic ECA, 555; laparoscopic ICA, 356; robot-assisted ECA, 88; robot-assisted ICA, 321). No differences in the co-primary endpoint at 30 days after surgery were observed between cohorts (7.2 and 7.6 per cent in ECA and ICA groups respectively; 7.8 and 6.6 per cent in laparoscopic and robot-assisted groups). Lower overall complication rates were observed after ICA, specifically less ileus, and nausea and vomiting after robot-assisted procedures.

CONCLUSION

No difference in the composite outcome of surgical wound infections and severe postoperative complications was found between intracorporeal versus extracorporeal anastomosis or laparoscopy versus robot-assisted surgery.

Oral antibiotics and mechanical bowel preparation for colorectal surgery: A prospective observational study of surgical site infection and microbial analysis

PURPOSE

Surgical site infections (SSIs) are common in colorectal surgery. Mechanical bowel preparation (MBP) in conjunction with oral antibiotics (OABs) have been shown to reduce SSI rates. It however is still unclear which OABs to use, and how this can be implemented in practice.

METHODS

This is a prospective observational study carried out in Swansea Bay University Health Board during 2019-2021, evaluating the introduction of OABs in a stepwise manner on the incidence of SSI in major colorectal surgery. A control group having MBP only was compared to two OAB groups: one group had MBP plus metronidazole only and the second MBP plus metronidazole and neomycin. A 30-day follow-up after surgery was ascertained via chart review and telephone contact. Logistic regression was performed to estimate the relation between OAB use and SSI, with adjustment for confounding. In a subset of patients, faecal samples were analysed through 16S rRNA amplicon sequencing before and after OAB treatment, depicting the impact of the gut microbiome.

RESULTS

In total 160 patients were analysed: 46 patients had MBP only, whilst 76 patients had MBP plus metronidazole only and 38 patients had MBP with metronidazole/neomycin. The SSI rate in the entire cohort was 33.8%, whilst the adjusted ORs for the single- and dual-OAB groups were 0.76 (95% CI: 0.17-1.81) and 0.50 (95% CI: 0.17-1.52). The microbial analysis demonstrated that the relative abundance for many bacterial genera was changed before and after OAB treatment, but no link with SSI development could be shown.

CONCLUSIONS

Introduction of OABs in conjunction with MBP in colorectal surgery is feasible, and may potentially lead to lower rates of SSI, as well as altering the community structure of the faecal microbiome. More research is needed, especially considering different OABs and mechanistic studies of the gut microbiome in the context of colorectal surgery.

Selective Decontamination with Oral Antibiotics in Colorectal Surgery: 90-day Reintervention Rates and Long-term Oncological Follow-up

BACKGROUND

Oral antibiotics (OAB) in colorectal surgery have been shown to reduce surgical site infections (SSIs) and possibly anastomotic leakage. However, evidence on long-term follow-up, reintervention rates and 5-year oncological follow-up is lacking. The current study aims at elucidating this knowledge gap.

METHODS

This study evaluated the long-term effectiveness of perioperative 'Selective decontamination of the digestive tract' (SDD) in colorectal cancer surgery. The primary outcome was anastomotic leakage within 90 days, secondary outcomes included infectious complications, reinterventions, readmission, hospital stay, and 5-year overall and disease-free-survival. Statistical analysis including univariate and multivariate analysis was performed to identify predictors of 90-day outcomes, and Kaplan-Meier survival analysis was used for the 5-year survival outcomes.

RESULTS

In total 455 patients were analyzed, 228 participants in the SDD group and 227 in the control group. Anastomotic leakage rate was not statistically different between the SDD and control group (6.6% versus 9.7%). One or more infectious complications occurred in 15.4% of patients in the SDD group and in 28.2% in the control group (OR 0.46, 95% C.I. 0.29 - 0.73). In the SDD group 8,8% of patients required a reintervention compared to 16,3% of patients in the control group (OR 0.47, 95% C.I. 0.26 - 0.84). After multivariable analysis SDD remained significant in reducing both infectious complications and reinterventions after 90-days follow-up. There was no difference between SDD and control group in 5-year overall survival and disease-free-survival.

CONCLUSION

SDD as OAB is effective in reducing 90-days postoperative infectious complications and reinterventions. As such, SDD as standard OAB in elective colorectal surgery is highly recommended.

Effect of preoperative oral antibiotics and mechanical bowel preparation on the prevention of surgical site infection in elective colorectal surgery, and does oral antibiotic regime matter? a bayesian network meta-analysis

PURPOSE

Surgical site infection (SSI) impacts 5-20% of patients after elective colorectal surgery. There are varying reports on the effectiveness of oral antibiotics (OAB) with preoperative mechanical bowel preparation (MBP) in preventing SSI. We aim to determine the role of OAB and MBP in preventing SSI after elective colorectal surgery. We also determine if a specific OAB regimen will be more effective than others.

METHODS

This study investigated the impact of OAB and MBP in patients undergoing elective colorectal surgery. PubMed, MEDLINE, Ovid, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, ACP Journal Club, and Embase databases were searched for randomized clinical trials (RCTs) published by June 2022. All RCTs comparing various preoperative bowel preparation regimens, including pairwise or multi-intervention comparisons, were included. To establish the role of OAB and MBP in preventing SSI, we conducted a Bayesian network meta-analysis on all RCTs. We further performed subgroup analysis to determine the most effective OAB regimen.

RESULTS

Among included 46 studies with a total of 12690 patients, patients in the MBP + OAB group were less likely to have SSI than those having MBP-only (OR 0.55, 95% CrI 0.39-0.76), and without MBP and OAB (OR 0.52, 95% CrI 0.32-0.84). OAB regimen C (kanamycin + metronidazole) and A (neomycin + metronidazole) demonstrated a significantly reduced incidence of SSI, compared to regimen B (neomycin + erythromycin) with OR 0.24 (95% CrI 0.07-0.79) and 0.26 (95% CrI 0.07-0.99) respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

OAB with MBP reduces the risk of SSI after elective colorectal surgery. Providing adequate aerobic and anaerobic coverage with OAB may confer better protection against SSI.

Strategies to prevent surgical site infections in acute-care hospitals: 2022 Update

The intent of this document is to highlight practical recommendations in a concise format designed to assist acute-care hospitals in implementing and prioritizing their surgical-site infection (SSI) prevention efforts. This document updates the Strategies to Prevent Surgical Site Infections in Acute Care Hospitals published in 2014. This expert guidance document is sponsored by the Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America (SHEA). It is the product of a collaborative effort led by SHEA, the Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA), the Association for Professionals in Infection Control and Epidemiology (APIC), the American Hospital Association (AHA), and The Joint Commission, with major contributions from representatives of a number of organizations and societies with content expertise.

Leveraging a nationwide infection surveillance program to implement a colorectal surgical site infection reduction bundle: a pragmatic, prospective, and multicenter cohort study

BACKGROUND

Bundled interventions usually reduce surgical site infection (SSI) when implemented at single hospitals, but the feasibility of their implementation at the nationwide level and their clinical results are not well established.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Pragmatic interventional study to analyze the implementation and outcomes of a colorectal surgery care bundle within a nationwide quality improvement program. The bundle consisted of antibiotic prophylaxis, oral antibiotic prophylaxis (OAP), mechanical bowel preparation, laparoscopy, normothermia, and a wound retractor. Control group (CG) and Intervention group (IG) were compared. Overall SSI, superficial (S-SSI), deep (D-SSI), and organ/space (O/S-SSI) rates were analyzed. Secondary endpoints included microbiology, 30-day mortality, and length of hospital stay.

RESULTS

A total of 37 849 procedures were included, 19 655 in the CG and 18 194 in the IG. In all, 5462 SSIs (14.43%) were detected: 1767 S-SSI (4.67%), 847 D-SSI (2.24%), and 2838 O/S-SSI (7.5%). Overall SSI fell from 18.38% (CG) to 10.17% (IG), odds ratio (OR) of 0.503 [0.473-0.524]. O/S-SSI rates were 9.15% (CG) and 5.72% (IG), OR of 0.602 [0.556-0.652]. The overall SSI rate was 16.71% when no measure was applied and 6.23% when all six were used. Bundle implementation reduced the probability of overall SSI (OR: 0.331; CI 95 : 0.242-0.453), and also O/S-SSI rate (OR: 0.643; CI 95 : 0.416-0.919). In the univariate analysis, all measures except normothermia were associated with a reduction in overall SSI, while only laparoscopy, OAP, and mechanical bowel preparation were related to a decrease in O/S-SSI. Laparoscopy, wound retractor, and OAP decreased overall SSI and O/S-SSI in the multivariate analysis.

CONCLUSIONS

In this cohort study, the application of a specific care bundle within a nationwide nosocomial infection surveillance system proved feasible and resulted in a significant reduction in overall and O/S-SSI rates in the elective colon and rectal surgery. The OR for SSI fell between 1.5 and 3 times after the implementation of the bundle.

Is There a Role for Mechanical and Oral Antibiotic Bowel Preparation for Patients Undergoing Minimally Invasive Colorectal Surgery? A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

To date, all meta-analyses on oral antibiotic prophylaxis (OA) and mechanical bowel preparation (MBP) in colorectal surgery have included results of both open and minimally invasive approaches. Mixing both procedures may lead to false conclusions. The aim of the study was to assess the available evidence of mechanical and oral antibiotic bowel preparation in reducing the incidence of surgical site infection (SSI) and other complications following minimally invasive elective colorectal surgery.

METHODS

We searched PubMed, Science Direct, Google Scholar and Cochrane Library from 2000 to May 1, 2022. Comparative randomized and non-randomized studies were included. We reviewed the use of oral OA, MBP and combinations of these treatments. The methodological quality of the included studies was assessed using the Rob v2 and Robins-I tools.

RESULTS

We included 18 studies (7 randomized controlled trials and 11 cohort studies). Meta-analysis of the included studies showed that the combination of MBP + OA was associated with a significant reduction in SSI, AL and overall morbidity compared with the other options no preparation, MBP only and OA only.  CONCLUSION: Adding OA with MBP has a positive impact in reducing the incidence of SSI, AL and overall morbidity after minimally invasive colorectal surgery. Therefore, the combination of OA and MBP should be encouraged in this selected group of patients undergoing minimally invasive surgery.

Improved Prediction of Surgical-Site Infection After Colorectal Surgery Using Machine Learning

BACKGROUND

Surgical-site infection is a source of significant morbidity after colorectal surgery. Previous efforts to develop models that predict surgical-site infection have had limited accuracy. Machine learning has shown promise in predicting postoperative outcomes by identifying nonlinear patterns within large data sets.

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to seek usage of machine learning to develop a more accurate predictive model for colorectal surgical-site infections.

DESIGN

Patients who underwent colorectal surgery were identified in the American College of Surgeons National Quality Improvement Program database from years 2012 to 2019 and were split into training, validation, and test sets. Machine-learning techniques included random forest, gradient boosting, and artificial neural network. A logistic regression model was also created. Model performance was assessed using area under the receiver operating characteristic curve.

SETTINGS

A national, multicenter data set.

PATIENTS

Patients who underwent colorectal surgery.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The primary outcome (surgical-site infection) included patients who experienced superficial, deep, or organ-space surgical-site infections.

RESULTS

The data set included 275,152 patients after the application of exclusion criteria. Of all patients, 10.7% experienced a surgical-site infection. Artificial neural network showed the best performance with area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.769 (95% CI, 0.762-0.777), compared with 0.766 (95% CI, 0.759-0.774) for gradient boosting, 0.764 (95% CI, 0.756-0.772) for random forest, and 0.677 (95% CI, 0.669-0.685) for logistic regression. For the artificial neural network model, the strongest predictors of surgical-site infection were organ-space surgical-site infection present at time of surgery, operative time, oral antibiotic bowel preparation, and surgical approach.

LIMITATIONS

Local institutional validation was not performed.

CONCLUSIONS

Machine-learning techniques predict colorectal surgical-site infections with higher accuracy than logistic regression. These techniques may be used to identify patients at increased risk and to target preventive interventions for surgical-site infection. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/C88 .

PREDICCIN MEJORADA DE LA INFECCIN DEL SITIO QUIRRGICO DESPUS DE LA CIRUGA COLORRECTAL MEDIANTE EL APRENDIZAJE AUTOMTICO

ANTECEDENTES:La infección del sitio quirúrgico es una fuente de morbilidad significativa después de la cirugía colorrectal. Los esfuerzos anteriores para desarrollar modelos que predijeran la infección del sitio quirúrgico han tenido una precisión limitada. El aprendizaje automático se ha mostrado prometedor en la predicción de los resultados posoperatorios mediante la identificación de patrones no lineales dentro de grandes conjuntos de datos.OBJETIVO:Intentamos utilizar el aprendizaje automático para desarrollar un modelo predictivo más preciso para las infecciones del sitio quirúrgico colorrectal.DISEÑO:Los pacientes que se sometieron a cirugía colorrectal se identificaron en la base de datos del Programa Nacional de Mejoramiento de la Calidad del Colegio Estadounidense de Cirujanos de los años 2012 a 2019 y se dividieron en conjuntos de capacitación, validación y prueba. Las técnicas de aprendizaje automático incluyeron conjunto aleatorio, aumento de gradiente y red neuronal artificial. También se creó un modelo de regresión logística. El rendimiento del modelo se evaluó utilizando el área bajo la curva característica operativa del receptor.CONFIGURACIÓN:Un conjunto de datos multicéntrico nacional.PACIENTES:Pacientes intervenidos de cirugía colorrectal.PRINCIPALES MEDIDAS DE RESULTADO:El resultado primario (infección del sitio quirúrgico) incluyó pacientes que experimentaron infecciones superficiales, profundas o del espacio de órganos del sitio quirúrgico.RESULTADOS:El conjunto de datos incluyó 275.152 pacientes después de la aplicación de los criterios de exclusión. El 10,7% de los pacientes presentó infección del sitio quirúrgico. La red neuronal artificial mostró el mejor rendimiento con el área bajo la curva característica operativa del receptor de 0,769 (IC del 95 %: 0,762 - 0,777), en comparación con 0,766 (IC del 95 %: 0,759 - 0,774) para el aumento de gradiente, 0,764 (IC del 95 %: 0,756 - 0,772) para conjunto aleatorio y 0,677 (IC 95% 0,669 - 0,685) para regresión logística. Para el modelo de red neuronal artificial, los predictores más fuertes de infección del sitio quirúrgico fueron la infección del sitio quirúrgico del espacio del órgano presente en el momento de la cirugía, el tiempo operatorio, la preparación intestinal con antibióticos orales y el abordaje quirúrgico.LIMITACIONES:No se realizó validación institucional local.CONCLUSIONES:Las técnicas de aprendizaje automático predicen infecciones del sitio quirúrgico colorrectal con mayor precisión que la regresión logística. Estas técnicas se pueden usar para identificar a los pacientes con mayor riesgo y para orientar las intervenciones preventivas para la infección del sitio quirúrgico. Consulte Video Resumen en http://links.lww.com/DCR/C88 . (Traducción-Dr Yolanda Colorado ).

Preparing the Bowel (Microbiome) for Surgery: Surgical Bioresilience

The preparation of the bowel for radical surgery is a corner stone of elective colorectal practice. The evidence for this intervention is of variable quality and it is often contradictory, yet there is now a global move toward the adoption of oral antibiotic therapy for the reduction of perioperative infective complications, such as surgical site infections. The gut microbiome is a critical mediator of the systemic inflammatory response to surgical injury, wound healing, and perioperative gut function. The loss of critical microbial symbiotic functions caused by bowel preparation and surgery has an adverse impact on surgical outcomes, yet the mechanisms through which this occurs are poorly defined. In this review, the evidence for bowel preparation strategies is critically appraised in the context of the gut microbiome. The impact of antibiotic therapy on the surgical gut microbiome and the importance of the intestinal "resistome" to surgical recovery is described. Data to support the augmentation of the microbiome through diet, probiotic and symbiotic approaches, as well as fecal transplantation are also appraised. Finally, we propose a novel strategy of bowel preparation defined as " surgical bioresilience " and define areas or prioritization in this emerging field. This describes the optimization of surgical intestinal homeostasis and core surgical exposome-microbiome interactions that regulate the wound immune microenvironment, the systemic inflammatory response to surgical injury, and gut function across the perioperative time course.

The implication of gut microbiota in recovery from gastrointestinal surgery

Recovery from gastrointestinal (GI) surgery is often interrupted by the unpredictable occurrence of postoperative complications, including infections, anastomotic leak, GI dysmotility, malabsorption, cancer development, and cancer recurrence, in which the implication of gut microbiota is beginning to emerge. Gut microbiota can be imbalanced before surgery due to the underlying disease and its treatment. The immediate preparations for GI surgery, including fasting, mechanical bowel cleaning, and antibiotic intervention, disrupt gut microbiota. Surgical removal of GI segments also perturbs gut microbiota due to GI tract reconstruction and epithelial barrier destruction. In return, the altered gut microbiota contributes to the occurrence of postoperative complications. Therefore, understanding how to balance the gut microbiota during the perioperative period is important for surgeons. We aim to overview the current knowledge to investigate the role of gut microbiota in recovery from GI surgery, focusing on the crosstalk between gut microbiota and host in the pathogenesis of postoperative complications. A comprehensive understanding of the postoperative response of the GI tract to the altered gut microbiota provides valuable cues for surgeons to preserve the beneficial functions and suppress the adverse effects of gut microbiota, which will help to enhance recovery from GI surgery.

Ambulatory laparoscopic colectomies: a systematic review

AIM

Ambulatory laparoscopic colectomy (ALC), meaning discharge within 24 h of surgical colonic resection, has recently been proposed in a few, selected patients. This systematic review was performed with the aim of reviewing protocols for ALC and assessing feasibility, safety and outcomes after ALC.

METHOD

A PRISMA-compliant systematic review and pooled analysis was performed searching all English studies published until October 2022 in PubMed, Cochrane Library, Web of Science (PROSPERO, CRD42022334463). Inclusion criteria were original articles including patients undergoing ALC, specifying at least one outcome of interest. Exclusion criteria were articles reporting a robotic-assisted procedure; unable to retrieve patient data from articles; the same patient series included in different studies. Primary outcomes were success, overall complications and readmission rates. Secondary outcomes included mortality and specific complications such us surgical site infection, anastomotic leak, ileus, bleeding, rate of ALC acceptance, and unscheduled consultation and reoperation rate.

RESULTS

Among 1087 studies imported for screening, 11 were included (1296 patients). The success rate was 47% with an overall morbidity of 14%. Readmission and reoperation rates were 5% and 1%, respectively. No mortality was recorded. Protocols of ALC differ significantly among published studies.

CONCLUSIONS

Overall, ALC appears to be safe and feasible in selected cases with an acceptable success rate and a low risk of readmission after hospital discharge. Future studies should evaluate patients' benefits and discharge criteria, as well as uniformity and standardization of eligibility criteria. This systematic review may help inform on ALC adoption in clinical practice.

Exploring the roles of intestinal flora in enhanced recovery after surgery

Striving to optimize surgical outcomes, the Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) pathway mitigates patients' stress through the implementation of evidence-based practices during the pre-, intra-, and postoperative periods. Intestinal flora is a sophisticated ecosystem integrating with the host and the external environment, which serves as a mediator in diverse interventions of ERAS to regulate human metabolism and inflammation. This review linked gut microbes and their metabolites with ERAS interventions, offering novel high-quality investigative proponents for ERAS. ERAS could alter the composition and function of intestinal flora in patients by alleviating various perioperative stress responses. Modifying gut flora through multiple modalities, such as diet and nutrition, to accelerate recovery might be a complementary approach when exploring novel ERAS initiatives. Meanwhile, the pandemic of COVID-19 and the availability of promising qualitative evidence created both challenges and opportunities for the establishment of ERAS mode.

ESCMID/EUCIC clinical practice guidelines on perioperative antibiotic prophylaxis in patients colonized by multidrug-resistant Gram-negative bacteria before surgery

SCOPE

The aim of the guidelines is to provide recommendations on perioperative antibiotic prophylaxis (PAP) in adult inpatients who are carriers of multidrug-resistant Gram-negative bacteria (MDR-GNB) before surgery.

METHODS

These evidence-based guidelines were developed after a systematic review of published studies on PAP targeting the following MDR-GNB: extended-spectrum cephalosporin-resistant Enterobacterales, carbapenem-resistant Enterobacterales (CRE), aminoglycoside-resistant Enterobacterales, fluoroquinolone-resistant Enterobacterales, cotrimoxazole-resistant Stenotrophomonas maltophilia, carbapenem-resistant Acinetobacter baumannii (CRAB), extremely drug-resistant Pseudomonas aeruginosa, colistin-resistant Gram-negative bacteria, and pan-drug-resistant Gram-negative bacteria. The critical outcomes were the occurrence of surgical site infections (SSIs) caused by any bacteria and/or by the colonizing MDR-GNB, and SSI-attributable mortality. Important outcomes included the occurrence of any type of postsurgical infectious complication, all-cause mortality, and adverse events of PAP, including development of resistance to targeted (culture-based) PAP after surgery and incidence of Clostridioides difficile infections. The last search of all databases was performed until April 30, 2022. The level of evidence and strength of each recommendation were defined according to the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach. Consensus of a multidisciplinary expert panel was reached for the final list of recommendations. Antimicrobial stewardship considerations were included in the recommendation development.

RECOMMENDATIONS

The guideline panel reviewed the evidence, per bacteria, of the risk of SSIs in patients colonized with MDR-GNB before surgery and critically appraised the existing studies. Significant knowledge gaps were identified, and most questions were addressed by observational studies. Moderate to high risk of bias was identified in the retrieved studies, and the majority of the recommendations were supported by low level of evidence. The panel conditionally recommends rectal screening and targeted PAP for fluoroquinolone-resistant Enterobacterales before transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy and for extended-spectrum cephalosporin-resistant Enterobacterales in patients undergoing colorectal surgery and solid organ transplantation. Screening for CRE and CRAB is suggested before transplant surgery after assessment of the local epidemiology. Careful consideration of the laboratory workload and involvement of antimicrobial stewardship teams before implementing the screening procedures or performing changes in PAP are warranted. High-quality prospective studies to assess the impact of PAP among CRE and CRAB carriers performing high-risk surgeries are advocated. Future well-designed clinical trials should assess the effectiveness of targeted PAP, including the monitoring of MDR-GNB colonization through postoperative cultures using European Committee on Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing clinical breakpoints.

A bélelőkészítés lehetőségei és hazai gyakorlata a tervezett colorectalis műtétek előtt

Introduction

The bowel preparation before elective colorectal surgery is a controversial topic in the surgical practice. During the last 15 years numerous publications concerning the necessity and options of the bowel preparation were published. The aim of our team was to perform a survey about the current, domestic practice as well as to give a short overview of the relevant literature and recommendations.

Methods

50 surgical departments performing colorectal surgeries routinely were asked to fill out an online, anonymous survey. The data of the survey filled out by 40 surgical departments were analyzed separately for the surgeries of the right colon, the left colon, and the rectum.

Results

Based on the results, there is a high heterogeneity concerning the mode of the bowel preparation: in case of the right colon 7 different combinations, in case of the left colon and rectum 3-3 different combinations of bowel preparation methods are used.

Conclusions

In the current domestic practice there is a high heterogeneity regarding the modes of the bowel preparation before the elective colorectal surgery, which are presumably based mainly on individual experience. The methods of the bowel preparation used by the majority of the surgical centers are not in accordance with the current international recommendations. A preparation of a Hungarian consensus document in this topic would be beneficial.

The Use of Mechanical Bowel Preparation and Oral Antibiotic Prophylaxis in Elective Colorectal Surgery: A Call for Change in Practice

Elective colorectal surgery is associated with one of the highest rates of surgical site infections (SSIs), which result in prolonged length of stay, morbidity, and mortality for these patients and have a significant financial burden to healthcare systems. In an effort to reduce the frequency of SSI rates associated with colorectal surgery, the 2018 World Health Organisation (WHO) guidelines recommend the routine use of mechanical bowel preparation (MBP) and oral antibiotic prophylaxis (OAP) in adult patients undergoing elective colorectal surgery. However, this recommendation remains a topic of debate internationally. The National Institute of Clinical Excellence (NICE) guidelines, last revised in 2019, recommend against the routine use of MBP and do not address the issue of OAP. In this communication, we reviewed the current guidelines and examined the most recent evidence from randomised-control trials (RCTs) and meta-analyses on the effect of MBP and OAP on SSI rates since the 2019 NICE guideline review. This recent evidence clearly demonstrated an SSI-risk-reduction benefit with the additional use of OAP and the combination of MBP and OAP in this group of patients, and we therefore highlight the need for change of the current NICE guidelines.

Antibiotic prophylaxis in breast cancer surgery (PAUS trial): randomised clinical double-blind parallel-group multicentre superiority trial

BACKGROUND

Participants were patients with invasive breast cancer undergoing primary surgery. The aim was to test whether a single dose of amoxicillin-clavulanic acid would reduce wound infection at 30 days postoperatively, and to identify risk factors for infection.

METHODS

Participants were randomised to either a single bolus of 1.2 g intravenous amoxicillin-clavulanic acid after the induction of anaesthesia (intervention) or no antibiotic (control). The primary outcome was the incidence of wound infection at 30 days postoperatively.

RESULTS

There were 871 evaluable patients. Of these, 438 received prophylactic antibiotic and 433 served as controls. Seventy-one (16.2 per cent) patients in the intervention group developed a wound infection by 30 days, while there were 83 (19.2 per cent) infections in the control group. This was not statistically significant (odds ratio (OR) 0.82, 95 per cent c.i. 0.58 to 1.15; P = 0.250). The risk of infection increased for every 5 kg/m2 of BMI (OR 1.29, 95 per cent c.i. 1.10 to 1.52; P = 0.003). Patients who were preoperative carriers of Staphylococcus aureus had an increased risk of postoperative wound infection; however, there was no benefit of preoperative antibiotics for patients with either a high BMI or who were carriers of S. aureus.

CONCLUSION

There was no statistically significant or clinically meaningful reduction in wound infection at 30 days following breast cancer surgery in patients who received a single dose of amoxicillin-clavulanic acid preoperatively.

REGISTRATION NUMBER

N0399145605 (National Research Register).

Risk Factors for Severe Postoperative Complications after Oncologic Right Colectomy: Unicenter Analysis

Background and Objectives: This study aimed to investigate the potential risk factors for severe postoperative complications after oncologic right colectomy. Materials and Methods: All consecutive patients with right colon cancer who underwent right colectomy in our department between 2016 and 2021 were retrospectively included in this study. The Clavien-Dindo grading system was used to evaluate postoperative complications. Univariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses were used to investigate risk factors for postoperative severe complications. Results: Of the 144 patients, there were 69 males and 75 females, with a median age of 69 (IQR 60-78). Postoperative morbidity and mortality rates were 41.7% (60 patients) and 11.1% (16 patients), respectively. The anastomotic leak rate was 5.3% (7 patients). Severe postoperative complications (Clavien-Dindo grades III-V) were present in 20 patients (13.9%). Univariate analysis showed the following as risk factors for postoperative severe complications: Charlson score, lack of mechanical bowel preparation, level of preoperative proteins, blood transfusions, and degree of urgency (elective/emergency right colectomy). In the logistic binary regression, the Charlson score (OR = 1.931, 95% CI = 1.077-3.463, p = 0.025) and preoperative protein level (OR = 0.049, 95% CI = 0.006-0.433, p = 0.007) were found to be independent risk factors for postoperative severe complications. Conclusions: Severe complications after oncologic right colectomy are associated with a low preoperative protein level and a higher Charlson comorbidity index.

Effect of oral antimicrobial prophylaxis on surgical site infection after elective colorectal surgery: multicentre, randomised, double blind, placebo controlled trial

OBJECTIVE

To investigate whether oral antimicrobial prophylaxis as an adjunct to intravenous antibiotic prophylaxis reduces surgical site infections after elective colorectal surgery.

DESIGN

Multicentre, randomised, double blind, placebo controlled trial.

SETTING

11 university and non-university hospitals in France between 25 May 2016 and 8 August 2019.

PARTICIPANTS

926 adults scheduled for elective colorectal surgery.

INTERVENTION

Patients were randomised to receive either a single 1 g dose of ornidazole (n=463) or placebo (n=463) orally 12 hours before surgery, in addition to intravenous antimicrobial prophylaxis before surgical incision.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The primary outcome was the proportion of patients with surgical site infection within 30 days after surgery. Secondary outcomes included individual types of surgical site infections and major postoperative complications (Clavien-Dindo classification grade 3 or higher) within 30 days after surgery.

RESULTS

Of the 960 patients who were enrolled, 926 (96%) were included in the analysis. The mean age of participants was 63 years and 554 (60%) were men. Surgical site infection within 30 days after surgery occurred in 60 of 463 patients (13%) in the oral prophylaxis group and 100 of 463 (22%) in the placebo group (absolute difference -8.6%, 95% confidence interval -13.5% to -3.8%; relative risk 0.60, 95% confidence interval 0.45 to 0.80). The proportion of patients with deep infections was 4.8% in the oral prophylaxis group and 8.0% in the placebo group (absolute difference -3.2%, 95% confidence interval -6.4% to -0.1%). The proportion of patients with organ space infections was 5.0% in the oral prophylaxis group and 8.4% in the placebo group (absolute difference -3.4%, -6.7% to -0.2%). Major postoperative complications occurred in 9.1% patients in the oral prophylaxis group and 13.6% in the placebo group (absolute difference -4.5%, -8.6% to -0.5%).

CONCLUSION

Among adults undergoing elective colorectal surgery, the addition of a single 1 g dose of ornidazole compared with placebo before surgery significantly reduced surgical site infections.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02618720.

Dysbiosis and Gastrointestinal Surgery: Current Insights and Future Research

Surgery of the gastrointestinal tract can result in deep changes among the gut commensals in terms of abundance, function and health consequences. Elective colorectal surgery can occur for neoplastic or inflammatory bowel disease; in these settings, microbiota imbalance is described as a preoperative condition, and it is linked to post-operative complications, as well. The study of bariatric patients led to several insights into the role of gut microbiota in obesity and after major surgical injuries. Preoperative dysbiosis and post-surgical microbiota reassessment are still poorly understood, and they could become a key part of preventing post-surgical complications. In the current review, we outline the most recent literature regarding agents and molecular pathways involved in pre- and post-operative dysbiosis in patients undergoing gastrointestinal surgery. Defining the standard method for microbiota assessment in these patients could set up the future approach and clinical practice.

Oral Antibiotics Bowel Preparation Without Mechanical Preparation for Minimally Invasive Colorectal Surgeries: Current Practice and Future Prospects

BACKGROUND

The efficacy of preoperative oral antibiotics alone compared with mechanical and oral antibiotic bowel preparation in minimally invasive surgery is still a matter of debate.

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to assess the trend of surgical site infection rates in parallel to the utilization of bowel preparation modality over time for minimally invasive colorectal surgeries in the United States.

DESIGN

This study is a retrospective analysis.

SETTINGS

The American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program database was the source of data for this study.

PATIENTS

Adult patients who underwent elective colorectal surgery and reported bowel preparation modality were included.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The primary outcomes measured were the trends and the comparison of surgical site infection rates for mutually exclusive groups according to the underlying disease (colorectal cancer, IBD, and diverticular disease) who underwent bowel preparation using oral antibiotics or combined mechanical and oral antibiotic bowel preparation. Patients who underwent rectal surgery were analyzed separately.

RESULTS

A total of 30,939 patients were included. Of them, 12,417 (40%) had rectal resections. Over the 7-year study period, mechanical and oral antibiotic bowel preparation utilization increased from 29.3% in 2012 to 64.0% in 2018; p < 0.0001 at the expense of no preparation and mechanical bowel preparation alone. Similarly, oral antibiotics utilization increased from 2.3% in 2012 to 5.5% in 2018; p < 0.0001. For patients with colon cancer, patients who had oral antibiotics alone had higher superficial surgical site infection rates than patients who had combined mechanical and oral antibiotic bowel preparation (1.9% vs 1.1%; p = 0.043). Superficial, deep, and organ space surgical site infection rates were similar for all other comparative colon surgery groups (cancer, IBD, and diverticular disease). Patients with rectal cancer who had oral antibiotics had higher rates of deep surgical site infection (0.9% vs 0.1%; p = 0.004). However, superficial, deep, and organ space surgical site infection rates were similar for all other comparative rectal surgery groups.

LIMITATIONS

This study was limited by the retrospective nature of the analysis.

CONCLUSION

This study revealed widespread adoption of mechanical and oral antibiotic bowel preparation and increased adoption of oral antibiotics over the study period. Surgical site infection rates are similar from a clinical relevance standpoint among most comparative groups, questioning the systematic preoperative addition of mechanical bowel preparation to oral antibiotics alone in all patients for minimally invasive colorectal surgery. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/B828 .

PREPARACIN INTESTINAL CON ANTIBITICOS ORALES SIN PREPARACIN MECNICA EN CIRUGAS COLORRECTALES MNIMAMENTE INVASIVAS PRCTICA ACTUAL Y PERSPECTIVAS FUTURAS

ANTECEDENTES:La eficacia de los antibióticos orales preoperatorios solos en comparación con la preparación intestinal mecánica mas antibióticos orales en la cirugía mínimamente invasiva es un tema de debate que todavía esta en curso.OBJETIVO:Este estudio tuvo como objetivo evaluar la tendencia de las tasas de infección del sitio quirúrgico en relacion a la utilización de la modalidad de preparación intestinal a lo largo del tiempo en cirugías colorrectales mínimamente invasivas en los Estados Unidos.DISEÑO:Análisis retrospectivo.ENTORNO CLINICO:Base de datos del Programa Nacional de Mejoramiento de la Calidad Quirúrgica del Colegio Estadounidense de Cirujanos.PACIENTES:Pacientes adultos sometidos a cirugía colorrectal electiva y reportados con modalidad de preparación intestinal.PRINCIPALES MEDIDAS DE VALORACIÓN:Tendencias y comparacion de las tasas de infección del sitio quirúrgico para grupos mutuamente excluyentes según la enfermedad subyacente (cáncer colorrectal, enfermedad inflamatoria intestinal y enfermedad diverticular) que se sometieron a preparación intestinal usando antibióticos orales exclusivamente o preparación intestinal mecánica combinada con antibióticos orales. Los pacientes que se sometieron a cirugía rectal se analizaron por separado.RESULTADOS:Se incluyeron un total de 30.939 pacientes. De ellos, 12.417 (40%) se sometieron a resecciones rectales. Durante el período de estudio de siete años, la preparación mecánica del intestino y la utilización de antibióticos orales aumentó del 29,3% en 2012 al 64,0% en 2018; p < 0,0001 sobre la no preparación y de la preparación intestinal mecánica exclusivamente. De manera similar, la utilización de antibióticos orales ha aumentado del 2,3% en 2012 al 5,5% en 2018; p < 0,0001. Para los pacientes con cáncer de colon, los pacientes que recibieron antibióticos orales solos tuvieron mayores tasas de infección superficial del sitio quirúrgico en comparación con los pacientes que recibieron una preparación intestinal mecánica combinada con antibióticos orales (1,9% frente a 1,1%; p = 0,043). Las tasas de infección superficial, profundo del sitio quirúrgico y de los compartimientos intraabdominales fueron similares para todos los demás grupos de cirugía de colon (cáncer, enfermedad inflamatoria intestinal y enfermedad diverticular). Los pacientes con cáncer de recto que recibieron antibióticos orales tuvieron tasas más altas de infección profunda del sitio quirúrgico (0,9% frente a 0,1%; p = 0,004). Sin embargo, las tasas de infección del sitio quirúrgico superficial, profundo y de los compartimientos intraabdominales fueron similares comparativamente para todos los demás grupos de cirugía rectal.LIMITACIONES:Carácter retrospectivo del análisis.CONCLUSIONES:Este estudio reveló la adopción generalizada de preparación intestinal mecánica y antibióticos orales y una mayor aceptación de antibióticos orales durante el período de estudio. Las tasas de infección del sitio quirúrgico parecen ser similares desde un punto de vista de relevancia clínica entre la mayoría de los grupos comparados, lo que cuestiona la adición preoperatoria sistemática de preparación intestinal mecánica a antibióticos orales solos en todos los pacientes para cirugía colorrectal mínimamente invasiva. Consulte Video Resumen en http://links.lww.com/DCR/B828 . (Traducción- Dr. Ingrid Melo ).

A Network Meta-Analysis and GRADE Assessment of the Effect of Preoperative Oral Antibiotics with and Without Mechanical Bowel Preparation on Surgical Site Infection Rate in Colorectal Surgery

Objective

To compare the effect of different methods of bowel preparation on the incidence of surgical site infections (SSI), anastomotic leakage (AL), and mortality in patients undergoing elective colorectal surgery.

Background

Recent guidelines advise mechanical bowel preparation with oral antibiotics (MBP-OA) for the prevention of SSI in colorectal surgery. Recent trials suggest oral antibiotics (OA) alone may be sufficient.

Methods

PubMed, MEDLINE, and Embase were searched from inception until 10-08-2021. We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing multiple methods of bowel preparation (mechanical bowel preparation [MBP], OA, MBP-OA, or no preparation) with regards to clinical outcomes such as incidence of SSI, AL, and mortality rates. A frequentist random-effects network meta-analysis was conducted to estimate the network effects of the different treatment options.

Results

We included 48 studies with 13,611 patients. Compared to no preparation, combined direct and indirect network estimates showed a relative risk (RR) for SSI of 0.57 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.45-0.72) for MBP-OA, 0.68 (95% CI, 0.49-0.95) for OA, and 1.05 (95% CI, 0.87-1.26) for MBP. The RR for MBP-OA compared to OA was 0.84 (95% CI, 0.60-1.19); in sensitivity analysis of mainly laparoscopic procedures this effect of MBP-OA was more profound (RR, 0.56; 95% CI, 0.31-0.99).

Conclusions

This network meta-analysis of RCTs finds that both mechanical bowel preparation with oral antibiotics and oral antibiotics alone are comparably effective in the prevention of SSI. The evidence is uncertain about the relative benefit of MBP-OA compared to OA alone. Therefore, it seems justified to use either of the 2 for the prevention of SSI in colorectal surgery.

Postoperative paralytic ileus following debulking surgery in ovarian cancer patients

Aim

This study aims to evaluate the incidence of postoperative ileus (POI) following cytoreductive surgery in epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC) patients and its impact on anastomotic leakage occurrence and postoperative complications.

Methods

A total of 357 surgeries were performed on 346 ovarian cancer patients between 1/2010 and 12/2020 at our institution. The postoperative course regarding paralytic ileus, anastomotic leakage, and postoperative complications was analyzed by Fisher's exact test and through ordinal logistic regression.

Results

A total of 233 patients (65.3%) returned to normal gastrointestinal functions within 3 days after surgery. A total of 123 patients (34.5%) developed POI. There were 199 anastomoses in 165 patients and 24 leakages (12.1%). Postoperative antibiotics (p 0.001), stoma creation (p 0.0001), and early start of laxatives (p 0.0048) significantly decreased POI, while anastomoses in general (p 0.0465) and especially low anastomoses (p 0.0143) showed increased POI rates. Intraoperative positive fluid excess >5,000 cc was associated with a higher risk for POI (p 0.0063), anastomotic leakage (p 0.0254), and severe complications (p 0.0012).

Conclusion

Postoperative antibiotics, an early start with laxatives, and stoma creation were associated with reduced POI rates. Patients with anastomoses showed an increased risk for POI. Severe complications, anastomotic leakages, and POI were more common in the case of intraoperative fluid balance exceeding 5,000 cc.

The Canadian Gynecologic Oncology Peri-operative Management Survey: re-examining Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) recommendations

OBJECTIVE

Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) is a global surgery quality improvement program associated with improved clinical outcomes across the spectrum of disciplines, including gynecologic oncology. The objective of this study was to re-survey the practice of ERAS Gynecologic Oncology guidelines across Canada, after the initial guidelines publication (2016), subsequent guidelines update (2019), and Society of Gynecologic Oncology of Canada (GOC) education events.

METHODS

A survey was created and developed through the GOC Communities of Practice ERAS section and distributed to all members between March and November 2021. The results of this survey were compared with the survey performed in 2015 RESULTS: The initial GOC survey in 2015 included 77/92 active gynecologic oncologists (84%) representing all provinces in Canada. The current updated survey had responses from 59/118 active gynecologic oncologists (51%) also from every province. Compared with the original survey there was a statistically significant improvement in uptake of 10 ERAS recommendations: smoking/alcohol cessation, modern fasting guidelines (allowance of clear fluids and solid food pre-operatively), carbohydrate loading, pre-operative warming, early feeding, post-operative laxative use, avoidance of nasogastric tubes and abdominal drains, foley catheter removal at 6 hours, and active mobilization (all p<0.003). Only two fields (stopping oral contraceptive medications pre-operatively and foley catheter removal post-operative day 1) showed worsening uptake across the two surveys (p<0.01). The ERAS recommendations that did not change in the examined time frame included routine use of mechanical bowel preparation, venous thromboembolism prophylaxis, pre-operative antibiotics, and additional antibiotic dosing for prolonged surgery.

CONCLUSIONS

This survey demonstrates increased uptake of 10 of the ERAS guideline recommendations among Canadian gynecologic oncology providers. These findings may translate to improvements in clinical outcomes and healthcare system-level benefits including increased hospital capacity and cost savings.

Probiotics/Synbiotics to Reduce Infectious Complications after Colorectal Surgery: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomised Controlled Trials

Aim: The aims of this systematic review and meta-analysis were to assess to what extent probiotics/synbiotics reduce infectious complications after colorectal surgery and whether probiotics or synbiotics should be considered as perioperative measures preventing or reducing infectious complications after CRS and should be included in enhanced recovery programmes (ERP). Secondary aims were to answer practical questions precisely on the best formulation and the type and timing of probiotics or synbiotics in CRS. Method: This systematic review and quantitative meta-analysis were conducted in accordance with PRISMA 2020 guidelines. Inclusion criteria were randomised trials comparing perioperative probiotics/synbiotics with a placebo or standard care in elective colorectal surgery. Exclusion criteria were non-randomised trials. Overall infectious complications and surgical site infections (SSIs including both deep abdominal infections and wound (skin or under the skin) infections) were the primary outcomes. Secondary outcomes were pulmonary and urinary infections, wound infections, and anastomotic leaks. The databases consulted were Medline, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Scopus, and Clinical Trials Register. Risk of bias was assessed according to the GRADE approach. The analysis calculated the random effects estimates risk ratio (RR) for each outcome. Results: 21 trials were included; 15 evaluated probiotics, and 6 evaluated synbiotics. There were significantly fewer infectious complications (risk ratio (RR) 0.59 [0.47–0.75], I² = 15%) and fewer SSI (RR 0.70 [0.52–0.95], I² = 0%) in the probiotic or synbiotic group. There were also significantly fewer pulmonary infections (RR 0.35 [0.20–0.63]) and urinary infections RR 0.41 [0.19–0.87]) as opposed to anastomotic leaks (RR 0.83 [0.47–1.48]) and wound infections (RR 0.74 [0.53–1.03]). Sensitivity analyses showed no significant difference between probiotics and synbiotics in reducing postoperative infections (RR 0.55 [0.42–0.73] versus RR 0.69 [0.42–1.13], p = 0.46). Conclusions: Based on the finding of this study, probiotics/synbiotics reduce infectious complications after colorectal surgery. The effect size was more pronounced for pulmonary and urinary infections. From a practical aspect, some of the questions related to formulations and duration of probiotics or synbiotics need to be answered before including them definitively in enhanced recovery after colorectal surgery programmes.

Incision pressing, a simple and effective intervention to reduce colorectal surgical site infection: A propensity score-matched study

Background

Colorectal surgery is associated with a high risk of surgical site infection (SSI). In March 2017, we developed an intervention, called “PRESS”, with the aim of reducing colorectal superficial SSI. This study assessed the effect of the new intervention in reducing the rates of superficial SSI in colorectal surgery.

Methods

This study was a retrospective review of 312 PRESS+ patients compared to 171 historical control PRESS− patients who were 18 years of age or older and underwent elective colorectal surgery with clean-contaminated wounds from January 2015 to June 2020. In the PRESS+ groups, we pressed the incision downward hard with clean gauze after the interrupted suturing of the skin. Propensity score matching with 15 variables was performed in a 1:1 ratio to reduce selection bias. Univariate analysis and multivariate analysis were performed to identify risk factors associated with SSI.

Results

The characteristics of the PRESS+ (n = 160) and PRESS− (n = 160) groups were well balanced after propensity score matching. The PRESS+ group had a lower superficial SSI rate (1.9% vs. 6.9%, P = 0.029) and a lower overall SSI rate (2.5% vs. 10.0%, P = 0.006) than the PRESS− group. Furthermore, multivariate analysis showed that the incisional press was an effective protective factor for superficial SSI (adjusted odds ratio = 0.215, 95% confidence interval = 0.057–0.818, P = 0.024). In addition, female sex (P = 0.048) and blood transfusion (P = 0.011) were demonstrated to be independent risk factors for superficial SSI.

Conclusion

The incisional press after suturing is a simple, costless, and effective intervention in reducing superficial incisional SSI.

Optimized perioperative management (fast-track, ERAS) to enhance postoperative recovery in elective colorectal surgery

Aim

This manuscript provides information on the history, principles, and clinical results of Fast-track or ERAS concepts to optimize perioperative management (OPM).

Methods

With the focus on elective colorectal surgery description of the OPM concept and its elements for with special attention to the prevention of infectious complications and clinical results compared to traditional care will be given using recent systematic literature reviews. Additionally, clinical results for other major abdominal procedures are given.

Results

An optimized perioperative management protocol for elective colorectal resections will currently consist of 25 perioperative elements. These elements include the time from before hospital admission (patient education, screening, and treatment of possible risk factors like anemia, malnutrition, cessation of nicotine or alcohol abuse, optimization of concurrent systemic disease, physical prehabilitation, carbohydrate loading, adequate bowel preparation) to the preoperative period (shortened fasting, non-sedative premedication, prophylaxis of PONV and thromboembolic complications), intraoperative measures (systemic antibiotic prophylaxis, standardized anesthesia, normothermia and normovolemia, minimally invasive surgery, avoidance of drains and tubes) as well as postoperative actions (early oral feeding, enforced mobilization, early removal of a urinary catheter, stimulation of intestinal propulsion, control of hyperglycemia). Most of these elements are based on high-level evidence and will also have effects on the incidence of postoperative infectious complications.

Conclusion

Optimized perioperative management should be mandatory for elective surgery today as it enhances postoperative patient recovery, reduces morbidity and infectious complications.

Total neoadjuvant therapy for the treatment of locally advanced rectal cancer: a systematic minireview

Colorectal carcinoma is the second leading cause of cancer-related deaths, and indeed, rectal cancer accounting for approximately one third of newly diagnosed patients. Gold standard in the treatment of rectal cancer is a multimodality approach, aiming at a good control of the local disease. Distant recurrences are the major cause of mortality. Currently, Locally Advanced Rectal Cancer (LARC) patients undergo a combined treatment of chemotherapy and radiotherapy, followed by surgery. Eventually, more chemotherapy, namely adjuvant chemotherapy (aCT), may be necessary. Total Neoadjuvant Therapy (TNT) is an emerging approach aimed to reduce distant metastases and improve local control. Several ongoing studies are analyzing whether this new approach could improve oncological outcomes. Published results were encouraging, but the heterogeneity of protocols in use, makes the comparison and interpretation of data rather complex. One of the major concerns regarding TNT administration is related to its effect on larger and more advanced cancers that might not undergo similar down-staging as smaller, early-stage tumors. This minireview, based on a systematic literature search of randomized clinical trials and meta-analysis, summarizes current knowledge on TNT. The aim was to confirm or refute whether or not current practice of TNT is based on relevant evidence, to establish the quality of that evidence, and to address any uncertainty or variation in practice that may be occurring. A tentative grouping of general study characteristics, clinical features and treatments characteristics has been undertaken to evaluate if the reported studies are sufficiently homogeneous in terms of subjects involved, interventions, and outcomes to provide a meaningful idea of which patients are more likely to gain from this treatment.

Attitudes towards Enhanced Recovery after Surgery (ERAS) interventions in colorectal surgery: nationwide survey of Australia and New Zealand colorectal surgeons

BACKGROUND

Whilst Enhanced Recovery after Surgery (ERAS) has been widely accepted in the international colorectal surgery community, there remains significant variations in ERAS programme implementations, compliance rates and best practice recommendations in international guidelines.

METHODS

A questionnaire was distributed to colorectal surgeons from Australia and New Zealand after ethics approval. It evaluated specialist attitudes towards the effectiveness of specific ERAS interventions in improving short term outcomes after colorectal surgery. The data were analysed using a rating scale and graded response model in item response theory (IRT) on Stata MP, version 15 (StataCorp LP, College Station, TX).

RESULTS

Of 300 colorectal surgeons, 95 (31.7%) participated in the survey. Of eighteen ERAS interventions, this study identified eight strategies as most effective in improving ERAS programmes alongside early oral feeding and mobilisation. These included pre-operative iron infusion for anaemic patients (IRT score = 7.82 [95% CI: 6.01-9.16]), minimally invasive surgery (IRT score = 7.77 [95% CI: 5.96-9.07]), early in-dwelling catheter removal (IRT score = 7.69 [95% CI: 5.83-9.01]), pre-operative smoking cessation (IRT score = 7.68 [95% CI: 5.49-9.18]), pre-operative counselling (IRT score = 7.44 [95% CI: 5.58-8.88]), avoiding drains in colon surgery (IRT score = 7.37 [95% CI: 5.17-8.95]), avoiding nasogastric tubes (IRT score = 7.29 [95% CI: 5.32-8.8]) and early drain removal in rectal surgery (IRT score = 5.64 [95% CI: 3.49-7.66]).

CONCLUSIONS

This survey has demonstrated the current attitudes of colorectal surgeons from Australia and New Zealand regarding ERAS interventions. Eight of the interventions assessed in this study including pre-operative iron infusion for anaemic patients, minimally invasive surgery, early in-dwelling catheter removal, pre-operative smoking cessation, pre-operative counselling, avoidance of drains in colon surgery, avoiding nasogastric tubes and early drain removal in rectal surgery should be considered an important part of colorectal ERAS programmes.

Are colorectal surgery patients willing to accept an increased risk of surgical site infection to avoid mechanical bowel preparation? Implications for future trial design

AIM

Recent evidence has shown no difference in the risk of surgical site infection (SSI) with oral antibiotics alone (OA) and oral antibiotics in combination with mechanical bowel preparation (OA + MBP), suggesting that the use of MBP may be safely avoided. The aim of this work was to determine the absolute risk of SSI that patients would accept with OA relative to OA + MBP.

METHOD

Standardized, in-person interviews were conducted using the threshold task with patients attending colorectal surgery clinics who had previously had MBP. Participants were asked which option they preferred when the absolute risk of SSI was 7% for both options. Next, their switch point was determined by increasing the risk of SSI with OA by 1% intervals until their preference changed from OA to OA + MBP. Median switch point scores were reported and represented the absolute increased risk of SSI that patients would accept with OA relative to OA + MBP.

RESULTS

Fifty patients completed the interview. All participants chose OA over OA + MBP when the risk of SSI was 7% for both options. Switch points ranged from 8% to 25%, with a median of 10%, indicating that participants were willing to accept up to a 3% increase in absolute risk of developing a SSI with OA to avoid MBP.

CONCLUSIONS

The results showed that patients are willing to accept an increased risk of up to 3% for SSI with OA relative to OA + MBP. Incorporating patient preferences into the planning of future trials has the potential to improve the uptake of trial results into clinical practice.

Application of Operating Room Nursing Intervention to Incision Infection of Patients Undergoing Gastrointestinal Surgery Can Reduce Complications and Improve Gastrointestinal Function

Objective

To observe the influence of nursing intervention in operation rooms on incision infection of patients undergoing gastrointestinal surgery and the improvement of gastrointestinal function.

Methods

A total of 340 patients who underwent gastrointestinal surgery in our hospital from June 2020 to August 2021 were included. According to the random number table, they were divided into the conventional nursing group (n = 170) and the operating room nursing group (n = 170). The conventional nursing group was treated with routine nursing intervention, while the operating room nursing group was treated with operating room nursing intervention. The incision infection, healing, gastrointestinal function recovery, and complications in the two groups were compared, and the patient care satisfaction was recorded.

Results

The incidence of incision swelling, pain, and incision secretion in the operating room nursing group was significantly lower than that in the conventional nursing group (p < 0.05). The patients in the operating room nursing group had higher grade A healing than in the conventional nursing group, and lower grade B and grade C healing than in the conventional nursing group (p < 0.05). The time of anal exhaust, first defecation, and the time of gastric tube removal in the operating room nursing group were lower than those in the conventional nursing group (p < 0.05). The incidence of postoperative complications, such as incision infection, incision dehiscence, early inflammatory bowel adhesion, and abdominal abscess, in the operating room nursing group was lower than that in the conventional nursing group (p < 0.05). The total satisfaction degree in the operating room nursing group was significantly higher than that in the conventional nursing group (p < 0.05).

Conclusion

Nursing intervention in operation room can reduce complications and improve gastrointestinal function when applied to patients undergoing gastrointestinal surgery due to incision infection.

Early versus delayed defunctioning ileostomy closure after low anterior resection for rectal cancer: a meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis of safety and functional outcomes

PURPOSE

We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis with trial sequential analysis (TSA) to answer whether early closure of defunctioning ileostomy may be suitable after low anterior resection.

METHODS

MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched, up to October 2021, for RCTs comparing early closure (EC ≤ 30 days) and delayed closure (DC ≥ 60 days) of defunctioning ileostomy. The risk ratio (RR) with 95% CI was calculated for dichotomous variables and the mean difference (MD) with 95% CI for continuous variables. The GRADE methodology was implemented for assessing Quality of Evidence (QoE). TSA was implemented to address the risk of random error associated with sparse data and/or multiple testing.

RESULTS

Seven RCTs were included for quantitative synthesis. 599 patients were allocated to either EC (n = 306) or DC (n = 293). EC was associated with a higher rate of wound complications compared to DC (RR 2.56; 95% CI 1.33 to 4.93; P = 0.005; I² = 0%, QoE High), a lower incidence of postoperative small bowel obstruction (RR 0.46; 95% CI 0.24 to 0.89; P = 0.02; I² = 0%, QoE moderate), and a lower rate of stoma-related complications (RR 0.26; 95% CI 0.16 to 0.42; P < 0.00001; I² = 0%, QoE moderate). The rate of minor low anterior resection syndrome (LARS) (RR 1.13; 95% CI 0.55 to 2.33; P = 0.74; I² = 0%, QoE low) and major LARS (RR 0.80; 95% CI 0.59 to 1.09; P = 0.16; I² = 0%, QoE low) did not differ between the two groups. TSA demonstrated inconclusive evidence with insufficient sample sizes to detect the observed effects.

CONCLUSION

EC may confer some advantages compared with a DC. However, TSA advocated a cautious interpretation of the results.

PROSPERO REGISTER ID

CRD42021276557.